User talk:LittlePeng9
Welcome Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Subcubic graph number page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Ikosarakt1 (Talk) 16:18, January 28, 2013 wikiballs try this out. Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 09:28, March 16, 2013 (UTC) Transfinite Note: omega and Epsilon-zero is not infinite. Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 11:48, March 29, 2013 (UTC) :Depends on how one defines infinite. If we mean with it that something is larger than anything finite then transfinite -> infinite. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:03, March 29, 2013 (UTC) Template:wedges Vote now! Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 12:11, April 26, 2013 (UTC) Congrats Congrats you with birthday and age \(2 \uparrow\uparrow 3\). Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 11:47, May 23, 2013 (UTC) Actually, today I hit 15. I earlier said I'm 15 because of rounding error. So yeah, smallest odd semiprime. LittlePeng9 (talk) 13:43, May 23, 2013 (UTC) By the way, soon I shall reach really important milestone: July 8, 2013 I shall live my half-billionth second. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 14:20, May 23, 2013 (UTC) Congratulations with your birthday (and age \(2 \downarrow\downarrow 3\), this time for real :P) Wythagoras (talk) 18:54, May 23, 2014 (UTC) Please, stop undo edits Please, stop undo Ikosarakts edits. It is easy to fix. Wythagoras (talk) 09:13, August 8, 2013 (UTC) Sorry, didn't know you edit them too. LittlePeng9 (talk) 09:18, August 8, 2013 (UTC) Temporarily I got a laptop just now, so I can edit normally. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 11:45, August 8, 2013 (UTC) Hey, so you're an admin now, considering that I won't be around much and Ikosarakt could use some support. FB100Z • talk • 20:42, September 22, 2013 (UTC) name i kinda...found out your real name while stumbling upon a publicly available source. i won't disclose anything publicly to avoid drawing attention to it, but next time on chat i'll PM you where i found it so you can cover up. sorry :/ you're.so. 08:54, April 12, 2014 (UTC) :You don't have to be sorry, I expected you to find it eventually :P I wouldn't touch that topic if I wasn't aware of possible consequences. I don't consider my name to be any sort of top secret, if you asked me I'd tell you. But still I'm quite curious about where you have found it. LittlePeng9 (talk) 11:18, April 12, 2014 (UTC) ::Woah actually that was very easy to find haha King2218 (talk) 13:29, April 12, 2014 (UTC) prime counting function in FOA so i have all the pieces in place for defining \(\pi(n)\), except one that seems potentially problematic, namely a function that counts the number of 1's in the binary expansion of n''. any ideas? you're.so. 22:15, April 14, 2014 (UTC) :okay so OEIS tells me that this function is also equivalent to the largest integer ''a such that \(2^a | \binom{2n}{n}\), or \(2^a | \frac{(2n)!}{n!^2}\), but i don't see how to do factorials. every step i take seems to do some sort of goalpost moving you're.so. 00:51, April 15, 2014 (UTC) :I think I have found everything we need: here (pages 294-298) are preliminary definitions for defining exponentiation, but I'm pretty sure this can be used to define sequence of primes, and thus also \(\pi(n)\). Idea is to have a number which codes all numbers up to a given point, and from this it is possible to add next number to this sequence. This will work, but won't be easy to formalize. LittlePeng9 (talk) 10:51, April 18, 2014 (UTC) ::looks like Hájek and Pudlák managed to write the Hamming weight function. at least we know it's possible now you're.so. 17:29, April 18, 2014 (UTC) check it bam you're.so. 22:57, May 23, 2014 (UTC) bam LittlePeng9 (talk) 04:20, May 24, 2014 (UTC) surreal fundseqs i realize now that if we allow non-monotonic fundseqs, we can do something like w/2 = lim(0, w, 1, w-1, 2, w-2, ...). however i'm not aware of any definitions of the limit for surreal numbers, so maybe i'm rejoicing too soon you're.so. 20:59, June 10, 2014 (UTC) :I don't think there is any useful notion of limit in surreal numbers world, because, for example, between two "walls" of this limit there still is w/2+1, w/2-1, not to mention the whole wilderness of sums of infinitesimals. I, however, don't rule out existence of limits in surreals, though I can't even see when we can call sequence convergent. LittlePeng9 (talk) 21:22, June 10, 2014 (UTC) ::w/2+1 and w/2-1 seem like they would fall on the other side of a classification of surreals analogous to limit vs. successor ordinals. Although I've unfortunately misplaced my copy of ONAG (it'll turn up sooner or later), I wouldn't be surprised if Conway has already discovered and formalized that distinction. Maybe it's something like having a limit ordinal birthday, I'm not sure. you're.so. 23:11, June 10, 2014 (UTC) ::I think of the following definition for non-monotonic sequence a_1,a_2,... It's a number a with the least birthday value, and, for every natural number n, there are k,l>n such that a_k2(S'') for a countably infinite set ''S of surreals as follows. Partition S'' into two disjoint sets ''L and R'' so that 1) ''L is well-ordered by <, having order type at most w, 2) R'' is well-ordered by >, having order type at most w 3) all elements in ''L are strictly less than all those in R''. Then lim2(''S) = {L''|''R}. lim2 is not total (at least not over the power set of On2) but I think it is single-valued — that is, it seems that the L''/''R partition is unique. you're.so. 07:32, June 11, 2014 (UTC) Proof of uniqueness: Let L''1/''R''1 and ''L''2/''R''2 be two such partitions of ''S. We wish to show that L''1 = ''L''2. If ''L''1 and ''L''2 are both empty, then we are done. Otherwise, let ''x be the least element of L''1, which exists because ''L''1 is well-ordered by <. ''x must therefore be the least element of S'' (any smaller elements must belong to ''R''1, which contradicts condition 3). Now ''x belongs to either L''2 or ''R''2. Suppose ''x belongs to R''2: ''L''2 is empty and ''x is the least element of R''2. But since ''S is infinite, so is R''2, and therefore its order type with respect to < is at least w. Since ''R''2 has a least element, its order type cannot be w, which contradicts condition 2. Therefore, ''x is in L''2. Since ''x is in both L''1 and ''L''2, we consider ''S \ {x''} as partitioned by (''L''1 \ {''x})/''R''1 and (L''2 \ {''x})/''R''2. We can make the same argument by induction. you're.so. 17:57, June 11, 2014 (UTC) : Note: induction will work here because, by assumption, L''1 and ''L''2 are both well-ordered. LittlePeng9 (talk) 18:10, June 11, 2014 (UTC) Continued fractions: Copeland-Erdos vs. Champernowne Here's why the Champernowne constant has such a spiky continued fraction and Copeland-Erdos does not. Far into the digits of the former, you get very close to periodic behavior: :...184732861184732862184732863184732864184732865184732866... which is a few digits off a perfectly repeating decimal. This means that the Champernowne constant will be extremely close to certain rational numbers. We have to take a bit of leap of faith to assume that some of these will be its convergents, but if this link is legitimate, it explains the spikes very well. An unusually close convergent needs to be compensated for with a large term in the continued fraction. The lack of spikes in the Copeland-Erdos constant is a consequence of prime gaps getting wider and wider as we approach infinity, so there's less room for the periodicity as seen in Champernowne. However, spikes DO happen. They're just rarer than that of the Champernowne constant since the primes grow faster. I would like to try a simulation to test the theory that concatenation of slower-growing integer sequences results in spikier continued fractions. you're.so. 21:20, July 30, 2014 (UTC) :Thanks for that explanation. I actually had an idea on why this is so. I wonder if Champernowne's constant is Liouville. Such enormous terms in continued fraction strongly suggest so, but I wasn't able to find any mention of that fact. LittlePeng9 (talk) 21:30, July 30, 2014 (UTC) ::interestingly, Champerowne's constant has an irrationality measure of 10. Deedlit11 (talk) 22:54, July 30, 2014 (UTC) :::What happens if we change the base? you're.so. 23:51, July 30, 2014 (UTC) ::::The base-b Champerowne's constant has an irrationality measure of b. Deedlit11 (talk) 02:30, July 31, 2014 (UTC) TM specialist Yes, I think I would agree with that. Wythagoras (talk) 12:02, August 3, 2014 (UTC) :I'm a TM specialist too: : 0 * 1 r 0 :King2218 (talk) 13:12, August 3, 2014 (UTC) ::Neat! Yes, you are certainly a TM specialist. Maybe you'll get a Fields Medal for this discovery! Wythagoras (talk) 14:08, August 3, 2014 (UTC) ::dude this is a new chapter in TM research. i cant believe it man, thats brilliant you're.so. 19:56, August 3, 2014 (UTC) :::You wouldn't believe it guys, but this machine can solve the halting problem! :) King2218 (talk) 14:19, August 4, 2014 (UTC) ::::Oh my god, yes, you are 100% right - I wouldn't believe it :) LittlePeng9 (talk) 14:54, August 4, 2014 (UTC) :::::I hope I get this right. Is is that if it runs longer than this machine it doesn't halt and if it runs less steps it halts or so? :P Wythagoras (talk) 16:33, August 4, 2014 (UTC) ::::::Yup. :) King2218 (talk) 16:40, August 4, 2014 (UTC) k guys ive improved King's work and have proven the following: : 0 * 1 r you're.so. 07:39, August 29, 2014 (UTC) :This reminds me of a bug on old Windows versions which makes the upper-right buttons of windows appear as "0 1 r", among other graphical glitches. So that was a theorem all along?!?!? -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 12:16, August 29, 2014 (UTC) Bachmann OCFs It took a while, but I finally located the original paper by Heinz Bachmann describing one of the first ever ordinal collapsing functions. There's one problem: it's in German. Some help deciphering it would be appreciated. you're.so. 00:23, August 30, 2014 (UTC) :I can help you, if you want. Go to the wiki chat (not IRC) and we'll start. I'll join when I see you are in. Also, it looks nice. Wythagoras (talk) 16:48, August 30, 2014 (UTC) ::Oh man, that'd be great! If you could find some way to decipher the psi/phi function in the paper and get a complete definition on ordinal collapsing function, I would probably love you forever you're.so. 19:57, August 30, 2014 (UTC) ::Sorry, I've been super absent-minded and have been forgetting to open Wikia Chat. Even worse, our time zones are nine hours apart, so I've probably been asleep for most of the times you've been on and vice versa :c you're.so. 09:45, August 31, 2014 (UTC) ::Well, you now went to sleep, and for me and Wyth it's around noon right now. LittlePeng9 (talk) 09:51, August 31, 2014 (UTC) Friedman Did you contact him? What did he say about other problem? Wythagoras (talk) 16:48, August 30, 2014 (UTC) :I had to restate the other question, because the way I stated it was a bit too vague. I'm waiting for a reply right now. LittlePeng9 (talk) 17:00, August 30, 2014 (UTC) ::Hasn't he replied yet? Wythagoras (talk) 05:57, September 6, 2014 (UTC) ::Nope ;-; LittlePeng9 (talk) 06:26, September 6, 2014 (UTC) stackoverflow I'm not surprised that the stackoverflow folks are picky about your question. (They always are.) Here's my advice: since you are talking about code, ''post actual code. This is probably the main reason it was suspended. Also, make sure to post the minimal amount of code necessary for a complete stranger to understand it. it's vel 07:10, September 17, 2014 (UTC) Editing blogs. DONT. EDIT. http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Alejandro_Magno/My_ordinal_is_smaller_Remake EVER. AGAIN -- A Large Number Googologist -- 21:13, October 14, 2014 (UTC) dude i'm going to have to ask you to stop leaving comments on Alejandro's posts, or in general interacting directly with him. you're just stirring up trouble. it's vel 21:36, October 14, 2014 (UTC) :Okay, I understand. Sorry for causing trouble. LittlePeng9 (talk) 04:23, October 15, 2014 (UTC) w_1^ck = w_1 recall that the church-kleene ordinal is defined as the least ordinal that is not the order type of a computable well-ordering of a subset of the natural numbers, and that the first uncountable ordinal is defined as the least ordinal that is not the order type of any well-ordering of a subset of the natural numbers. is it possible for these to be equal in a "reasonable theory"? it's vel 03:21, November 9, 2014 (UTC) : I would believe this to be true. I think it might be possible in Kripke-Platek set theory. In the model \(L_{\omega_1^\text{CK}}\) neither if these ordinals exists, so I wouldn't be surprised if we could find different model in which both ordinals are the same. LittlePeng9 (talk) 09:34, November 9, 2014 (UTC) IRC goto irc :Don't tell me what to do. LittlePeng9 (talk) 09:29, December 18, 2014 (UTC) have been waiting 5 hours on the irc ._. Problem 1 I have a solution, come to chat if you want to see it... Wythagoras (talk) 14:08, February 20, 2015 (UTC) "Linking page to itself" > "Undoing it" is the best way for getting the WIKI EXPERT badge!!!!!!! Just kidding, sorry :( Antares 3^^^3 10:05, March 7, 2015 (UTC) :Making a random edit and reverting it is never a problem, but I'd rather think of something more creative for a daily edit, e.g. replying to you on my talk page. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:26, March 7, 2015 (UTC) :How many days do you have until you get the "Wiki Hero" badge? \(\ Antares.H \) 07:36, March 8, 2015 (UTC) ::He edited last not at January 17, 2015, so you could calculate that (why did I bother to look this up?) Wythagoras (talk) 15:40, March 19, 2015 (UTC) :::wut LittlePeng9 (talk) 15:55, March 19, 2015 (UTC) ::::Seems like you are lucky... Wythagoras (talk) 16:22, March 19, 2015 (UTC) :::::I'm not exactly sure what happened, but my guess is that on that day I made an edit really late, and because of time zone difference between me and the server it got recorded in my contributions page as an edit on the next day, but I dunno. Maybe I was just lucky. LittlePeng9 (talk) 17:31, March 19, 2015 (UTC) BIG HUGE REMINDER READ NOW SUPER IMPORTANT work on the article on second-order arithmetic sometime later (he asked me to remind him on the irc) Cookiefonster (talk) 21:05, March 26, 2015 (UTC) : Thanks dude, but you should've made this thing on Saturday. I'm not looking on my talk page unless I have someone edit there. LittlePeng9 (talk) 21:06, March 26, 2015 (UTC) Labelled graph minor Still I don't understand how your definition of graph minor on labelled graphs works. For example, for (1) to (5), is graph A a minor of graph B? And for (1) to (3), is graph B a minor of graph A? {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 05:56, May 2, 2015 (UTC) : Are we using an ordering of labels in which labels form an empty order (i.e. no two labels are in relation) or the usual order on natural numbers? It is important here because the answer depends on this. LittlePeng9 (talk) 07:26, May 2, 2015 (UTC) : What about "no two different labels are in relation"? If so, it seems that 5A isn't a minor of 5B, but I don't know the others. {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 08:37, May 2, 2015 (UTC) ::I believe that 4A is a minor of 4B, but the answer to all your other questions is no. For 4A/4B, the vertices labelled 2 and 3 can be combined into one vertex labelled with both 2 and 3, and the vertex labelled 3 in 4A can be mapped to it. For the others, observe that if graph A has a label that isn't <= any label from graph B, or graph A has more vertices with labels from set S than graph B has vertices with labels greater than or equal to labels from set S, graph A can't be a minor of graph B. Deedlit11 (talk) 09:33, May 2, 2015 (UTC) :::Precisely as Deedlit says. LittlePeng9 (talk) 10:18, May 2, 2015 (UTC) :Okay. Is that definition (no two different labels are in relation) equivalent to this one? :Graph A is a minor of graph B iff A can be obtained from B by contracting some edges, deleting some edges, and deleting some isolated vertices. Where "contracting an edge" merges two vertices (labelled a and b) into one with label a or b. :And is this a well-quasi-order? {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 11:36, May 2, 2015 (UTC) ::As long as we have finitely many labels with empty relation betwen them, then that's it, and this indeed is a well-quasi-order. LittlePeng9 (talk) 13:28, May 2, 2015 (UTC) Birthday Congrats with your birthday and age 17. Wythagoras (talk) 08:13, May 23, 2015 (UTC) Hey, thanks a lot :D LittlePeng9 (talk) 10:30, May 23, 2015 (UTC) happy birthday Cookiefonster (talk) 11:37, May 23, 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I've just noticed that today is \(2^8\)-th consecutive day of me editing the wiki. LittlePeng9 (talk) 13:19, May 23, 2015 (UTC) :Also, the previous one was my 3333th edit on the wiki. LittlePeng9 (talk) 13:22, May 23, 2015 (UTC) Happy brithday birthday to you -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 14:32, May 23, 2015 (UTC) htanks a lot. LittlePeng9 (talk) 15:02, May 23, 2015 (UTC) happy 17th !! ! !! -- ve 17:16, May 23, 2015 (UTC) :Thanks dude ! !!! LittlePeng9 (talk) 17:54, May 23, 2015 (UTC) Wiki Hero If I'm correct you have only approximately 5 days to go to get the badge! Wythagoras (talk) 16:32, September 3, 2015 (UTC) : After I post this, I'll be at 359/365, so if basic arithmetic didn't fail me, on Wednesday I'll get the badge! LittlePeng9 (talk) 17:30, September 3, 2015 (UTC) Couldn't you solve this? I would like to state that ]n {1} 2 {1} 2[ is defined. I clearly stated that you take the last two members of the string, and therefore, ]n {1} 2 {1} 2[ = ]n {1} ))2(([ = )))...)))n(((...(((, with ))2(( nested functions. Even though I do understand why you deleted it (The source needs to be external)... If you think it wasn't well-defined, you could simply edit it, or ask my to do so. KthulhuHimself (talk) 06:17, October 14, 2015 (UTC) :i think i can speak for littlepeng9 here — please see my comment on your post about TaN. -- ve 06:34, October 14, 2015 (UTC) :It wasn't even me who said your notation is ill-defined, it was User:Fluoroantimonic Acid. LittlePeng9 (talk) 10:51, October 14, 2015 (UTC) I can see that now. Hope he sees this. KthulhuHimself (talk) 11:35, October 14, 2015 (UTC) The rules you added in the article were different of the current rules in the blog post and they were ill-defined. The actual rules from the blog post are fine Fluoroantimonic Acid (talk) 15:31, October 14, 2015 (UTC) Good to hear, I'll keep that in mind. KthulhuHimself (talk) 16:05, October 14, 2015 (UTC) Milestone 4000 EDITS! Be proud of yourself! Boboris02 (talk) 17:21, October 10, 2016 (UTC)Boboris02Boboris02 (talk) 17:21, October 10, 2016 (UTC) Vandalism Please remove http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/BESTEST_TRUE Mush9 (talk) 15:21, December 20, 2016 (UTC) :Apparently this is written by a sockpuppet of that guy who made that KKK page. He should be permabanned. Hit (talk) 15:31, December 20, 2016 (UTC)